5 comments:

Father, I'm against abortion. Not to be flippant, but I'm against cancer as well. (My mom died of cancer, albeit not breast cancer.)

Nonetheless: Does it not give you pause that Dr. Chris Kahlenborn could not manage to get his work published by a scholarly (peer-reviewed) press? I know that many pro-life folks will say, well, the deck is stacked against a pro-life viewpoint in the medical community. But really--NO experts (scholars) out there would back up his research strongly enough that a scholarly press would see Kahlenborn's research as credible enough to publish? (If a book on Catholic theology were published and no scholarly press, nor established Catholic theology publishers, would touch the book, would that lack of endorsement/verification not cause you to question the quality of the writer's research/scholarship?)

As you well know, anyone can self publish a book. Medical research, however, generally has a much, much higher standard. (Would you make a decision about cardiac health based on a book that a doctor had to self publish?)

On the one hand, can you provide evidence to support your claim that Dr. Kahlenborn "could not manage to get his work published by a scholarly (peer-reviewed) press"?

On the other hand, there have been numerous peer-reviewed articles that have been shown to be false (one need only think of the many foods that have been declared healthy and then suddenly unhealthy [I know food and cancer are not altogether similar, but the point remains). Simply because something is peer-reviewed does not guarantee it's findings.

There aren't "guarantees" that something published in a peer-reviewed (scholarly) journal or by a scholarly press is 100% accurate; you're right about that. But is there a strong likelihood that medical knowledge is more likely to be accurate if a group of respected experts are all examining it closely? It certainly seems likely, I'd say.

You're also right, of course, that I do not have proof that Dr. Kahlenborn tried and failed to get his work published by a scholarly press. It seems logical to assume, however, that he realized the credibility of his argument/findings would have been enhanced had they been published by a scholarly enterprise. I'm guessing he would have welcomed such credibility--had it been an option.

I do know that when the new Mississippi River bridge near St. Louis is constructed, I will feel more confident if I know it was designed by an engineer whose articles on engineering were published in well-recognized, peer-reviewed engineering journals, as opposed to a magazine (People magazine, for instance, or Field & Stream) put out by some none-engineering group someplace that is accountable to no experts at all. When it comes to matters of health and safety, I really do like my decision-making information to come from not one but many experts. They're experts for a reason. The member of the profession who doesn't produce work that can be trusted and verified by by others in that field may simply be a lone wolf. But to each his or her own, I guess.

Kahlenborn is far from the only researcher to find the links. Some have been published & peer-reviewed. The Turkish study comes to mind. There's more. Check out Karen Malec's info at Abortion Breast Cancer Coalition.

The American Cancer Society lists hormonal contraceptives as a carcinogenic on their website. I've seen it myself. But they fail to warn women in their numerous breast cancer awareness campaigns.